Last week The National Portrait Gallery’s touring exhibition, The Queen: Art and Image, arrived in London. In her Diamond Jubilee year, this timely and extensive portrayal of the monarch allows visitors to opine over her in a way unlike before. Walking through the exhibition, one traverses the decades demonstrating the startling shift in public perception and values during a reign that has engaged the attention of millions.
The contrast of a Warhol with an Annigoni, the proper with the conceptual (and testing), and new versus old no doubt leaves a lasting impression.
As exhibition curator, Paul Moorhouse, nicely puts it, “the exhibition is not political, and it is also neither overtly celebratory nor obviously critical. It is essentially about art and image-making.” Sleek’s Q&A with Moorhouse touches on the change of such a scrutinized public image and the things we know now that we didn’t know before.
Sleek: To celebrate the 60 years of her reign The Queen: Art and Image incorporates an extensive range of artists. In your opinion what does the work on show say about the changing perceptions of royalty over time?
Paul Moorhouse: The Queen: Art and Image includes formal commissioned portraits, studio photographs and revealing press snapshots as well as unconventional works of art by contemporary artists. All the images in the exhibition form a lens through which to view radical artistic, political and social changes. The visual language of the imagery reflects these changes, moving from the deference of the 1950s, the more down-to-earth portraits of the egalitarian 1960s, and the iconoclasm of Jamie Read’s Sex Pistols portrait of the Queen in the disaffected 1970s, to recent images that present a more ‘approachable’ monarch in times that are, socially, more informal and relaxed.
The exhibition has been touring since June last year, how have the responses been so far? Have you received any feedback that you weren’t expecting? In Belfast, a taxi-driver told me that half the population would like the exhibition, the other half would not. But this is not the way it turned out. In Belfast, as in Cardiff and Edinburgh, people were fascinated and surprised. The exhibition is not political, and it is also neither overtly celebratory nor obviously critical. It is essentially about art and image-making – and that is a universal theme that cuts across different geographical areas, both within the UK and internationally.
Thanks to the exhibition’s extensive display of work, what unique insight do we get of the Queen and her character that is unlike previous exhibitions? The formal and the unofficial are interwoven in this exhibition. As a result, the tension between the public face and the private person is implied. I began thinking about the selection three years ago. At the outset, there was some expectation that I would assemble a fairly conventional group of royal portraits – of which there are many in existence – but I felt strongly that such an approach was neither truthful nor desirable. In addition to formal portraiture, the idea we have of the Queen has been shaped by images that have occurred without formal approval.
In your opinion, how do perceptions of the Queen differ between today’s generations, young and old? Consequently, when visiting the exhibition what do you think these different audiences will take away with them from their visit? The exhibition is not a straightforward celebration. It approaches its subject critically, exploring the way the Queen’s image has evolved and what it means. As such, it speaks to supporters of monarchy, but also has something to offer those who are more interested in contemporary art and the nature of representation. Sustaining that balance for different audiences young and older has been a big challenge but has also been very exciting.
The Queen: Art and Image National Portrait Gallery, London 17 May until 21 October 2012